If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.

Odd thoughts after being violated by the Raptors...

Honest to God people I really was trying to hold off on doing another one of these until we had a win, but with this team.....

I feel really bad that I did not get any up during the win streak so I don't want people to think that the only time I want to post something is when we lose.

Having said that, let's move forward.

Ok, like everyone else I got the message that we were changing our starting lineup. In all honesty it is hard to argue against the coach making some kind of move because the previous two games were a little rough, in particular the Bobcats game.

Needless to say I just don't agree with his choices of who he benched and who he started but hey, it's his call to make.

Do I start off with the good or the bad from this game? Yes, surprisingly there was some good in this game. Not much mind you but some.

Yeah let's do that first.

Tyler showed me a new aspect to his game tonight. Defense on a star player.

Folks he stopped Chris Bosh dead in his tracks on two straight plays in the second half. Actually Bosh was a player I wanted to try and compare Tyler to for physical size because I think Chris is deceptively strong. However there was no comparison. Tyler was literally a tank and could go wherever he wanted and there was nothing Bosh was going to do to stop him and on the other end Bosh could not go inside on Tyler.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not claiming that for the game or any game for that matter that Tyler is now a defensive stopper. But in this game he showed me signs that he can at least play defense.

Why he played so few min. is a real shame, I would say mystery but we all know why he did not get many min. in this game.

Again for a player that I expected nothing from I am being pleasantly surprised in more games than not.

Danny Granger had a good second half from the field. I hesitate to put this in the good part of my thread but that is really how far we are reaching here to get some positive.

Folks there is something wrong with Granger. I don't know what it is. It could be his heel, he could be fatigued, the losing could be getting to him or something else or all of the above. I don't know what it is but something is really wrong with him. If you watch him on the floor he looks like a zombie at times and really only displays any form of emotion after something really big or if he doesn't get a call from a ref.

This is not the same Danny as last year who looked excited more times than not to be on the floor and was cheering on his team mates with every possession. It's not the fact that he is shooting poorly, God knows he has not been very good from the floor this year, but it is the way he is shooting. Almost as if he is just settling for the first thing he can get. That is why I am really not that thrilled with the second half performance. I mean really he just started to drop his three's. If they hadn't dropped?

I hope it’s just the heel.

Roy Hibbert pick and roll to the basket with Danny was very nice. He played scared almost all night though. Hard to blame him for that, he wasn't given very much confidence that he could play against the monster that is the Raptors front line.

As to anything else good from the game? Lester Conners did not blow snot from his nose onto the court.

Ok, that’s it that is all of the good I can think of from that game.

Now let's look at the bad.

Troy Murphy makes Brad Lohaus look like Charles Oakley.

In the first quarter of the game Troy was back on defense (ok that statement in and of itself is pretty much a joke but you get my point) and one of the Raptor guards (I think it was Calderon) ran right up next to him to get off a shot. No pressure, no attempt to get in his path, hell not even a foul attempt was made on this play.

The only thing missing from him was the red cape and the highly colored outfit because in my mind he pretty much just yelled Ole' as the guards went past him.

Look I don't hate Troy Murphy, in fact I freely admit I wanted him on the team and was thrilled with the trade when it happened. But I thought I was getting Brad Miller light with him.

I was wrong, pure and simple.

He is what he is and his skill set would help many teams. He can shoot, he has made himself be able to drive a little and he does collect rebounds at a pretty amazing clip.

But right now he is NOT what this team needs. Uncle Buck said at the party that there has never been a player he has missed less when he was injured than Troy and he was not wrong.

The fact of the matter is that I would much prefer that every single min. he is on the floor right now be divided between Tyler, Solomon and Jeff.

Do you have any idea how a player must be for me to want Jeff Foster in the game above them???

I know Troy has his fans and I am sorry for coming down so hard on him because in a way it is not his fault. He is who he is and everybody knows this. But with the way our coach demands he be used I just have to say I would much rather he not be here.

This brings us to our coach.

So let me get this straight you were afraid that Roy would not be able to defend the Monsters of the midway (obviously they must be feared beasts because of O’Brien’s reaction to them) so you thought it best to bring in Jeff Foster who is not in game shape, still injured and 103 years of age. Oh and to help with that killer defense you wanted to play you decided it was in our best interest to take out our best defender and considered by many in the NBA one of the most fierce defenders and replace him with the stay puff marshmellow man? However since the marshmellow man can shoot three's he helps spread the floor for your great interior attack that you had planned by, well by, um..... anybody? How about nobody.

Look I gave O'Brien credit last week for his coaching so I feel completely justified in ripping him here.

I understand that players play. I understand that O'Brien does not tell them to just go out there and jack up wild outside shots. I understand he wants them to take good open uncontested shots.

But at what point in time does the coach become responsible for player not understanding what a good shot is? When does it fall on him when they just settle for jump shot after jump shot?

It would be one thing if he was over on the sidelines yelling to do something different. It would even be another thing if he was taking players out after failing to move the ball or settle for jump shots. But he just stands there, much like when Jamaal did his thing with the Suns a couple of years ago. He just stands there and thinks that because they practice this and he shows them film clips of this that he does not have to do anything other than say "keep doing what your doing" and they will magically transform into the 90's Bulls driving the lanes.

I hate talking about O'Brien because what is going to happen is what happens every single time. Somebody is going to come on and call him a lousy coach and want him fired right now. This is overstated and wrong.

Only to be outdone by the people who now feel the need to be the O'Brien defenders who really are not defending O'Brien but they are just going after the first set that are over reacting.

It will just devolve from there.

I will say this. Jim is a middle of the road coach. He is not 100% right and he is not 100% wrong. However there is truth in the fact that he employs an unorthodox offensive system. So it does open him up for criticism.

However for the Raptors game, lousy coaching job from even before the tip off for making Roy afraid of his own shadow. To me you don't hide Roy and tell him "you just can't compete against these guys so better to sit over here and watch". You put him out there and if he fails he fails but he can learn from doing, not from being told he can't.

Ok, enough about him.

Let's lighten this up with a

Brandon played ok, I mean ok for him. His defense was about what you would expect from him but he did appear to at least seem more interested in helping out on offense. Not a great deal of success mind you, but he did try at least which is a step in the right direction.

D. Jones had an off game. I guess you could say that it was from having his role changed but he really seemed to be a little off tonight as well.

Actually overall the body language was pretty poor. It was so poor in fact that Clark Kellogg talked about it on the broadcast.

I didn't see the T.J. thing between him and O'Brien so I won't comment on it.

I know that he once again seemed to be active on defense but also reverted a couple of times into jumping in the air without knowing what he was going to do with the ball.

After watching Calderon again tonight I can see why they benched Ford.

Head and S Jones both did what we pretty much expect of them given their new diminished role on the team.

Watson at least hit a shot tonight; I was beginning to wonder if he ever was going to hit one again.

Jeff Foster was Jeff Foster. Solid player who should be getting spot min. in a veteran leadership role. Not starter who we once again are depending on to defend the best interior player and stop the pick and rolls.

I dread Mike Dunleavy's return.

Not because I don't like Mike, I do. I just dread how this coach will be using him again.

As of this moment I have almost zero doubt that we will once again be treated to Ford, Dunleavy, Granger, Murphy and Hibbert in the staring line up and we will once again be wondering why we are losing but scoring over 100 every game.

Here is hoping we can snap out of this funk tonight.

Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

Frankly, most teams have more talent up and down the roster than us. Not to mention experience. So we have to play well, not only in terms of excecution, but also in terms common purpose, mental focus, and intensity. In other words, we have to play harder and play together.

We haven't done that during the losing streak with the possible exception of the Cavs game. We are not playing together. The guys look frustrated and disjointed as far as team work. No solidarity. This is evident also in the execution. No common purpose or commitment to TEAM defense. Lots of one-one one and quick jumpers on offense. Not enough sharing the ball, ball reversal, purposeful drive and kick, purposeful off-the-ball screening, cutting, etc.

I agree with this questioning of the lineup changes. I agree Murphy is not, never has been, and never will be a defensive contributor. More of a definciency. I agree that the decision to restrict Roy's minutes against Toronto is questionable at best.

But when push comes to shove, the team, and by that I mean players and coaches, have to find a way to recommit to consistently playing with excitement, passion, and force and reestablish a collective responsibility to the group.

Maybe it is JOB and his micromanaging rotations, roles, and minutes that's undoing all the positivity. I don't know. But it will continue to be difficult until they figure out how to reenergize and change the dynamic. That could easily include the Clippers who are not bereft of talent. Hopefully, it's not too late to resolve some of this.

And IF there is a rift based on TJ that's truly affecting the team and causing this lethargy and inconsistency to any extent, I wouldn't give it too much more time until Watson took over as the starter and Price started to see regular minutes. I'd be happy with the Price part regardless of the existence of the TJ thing anyway.

I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

-Emiliano Zapata

Comment

Why do we have a PG that refuses to try dish unless he's under the basket and triple teamed? Why do we play team defense by standing around for over half the game and watching the other team do whatever they want? Why does the coach pick his starting lineup with a roulette wheel? Why do we spend an entire quarter shooting jumpers and not even attempting to drive the lane?

While I'm thinking of it...Why is it that most of the other coaches in the league start the same players, barring injury, 99% of the time. But JOB feels compelled to with the lineup on a continual basis? It's kind of a game within the game to try and guess who'll come off the bench when. Roy went by Rasho last night for a layup like Rasho was velcroed to the floor and looked pretty good while he was in there...and never saw the floor again

Maybe it's time to ask if JOB has lost this team?

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...nce-stephenson
"But, first, let us now praise famous moments, because something happened Tuesday night in Indianapolis that you can watch a lifetime’s worth of professional basketball and never see again. There was a brief, and very decisive, and altogether unprecedented, outburst of genuine officiating, and it was directed at the best player in the world, and that, my dear young person, simply is not done."

Comment

I think you need to add Foster's defense on Chris Bosh to the good part of your thread. Say whatever you want to about his age and number of minutes, but Bosh went 5-19 from the field. Jeff was a huge reason for that.

I know that Jack's been in a slump all season, and he had a great game tonight. I'm still reminded how much more I enjoy watching him play than TJ Ford.

Comment

Tyler played 15 minutes and is limited to a maximim of 22, so he could have and should have played more. As I mentioned in the other thread, I really, really liked the Foster Hansbrough combo, at least you saw some effort, intensity with those two guys on the court. Overall I thought Foster played a great game, he was Jeff, but his defense was outstanding, defending Bosh as well as anyone could.

I'll just repeat what I said in the other thread, I thought Ford's body language, effort, leadership was at a Tinsley level and as most of you know me that is probably the worst comparison I can ever make for a player. Ford should have been benched

Comment

I'll just repeat what I said in the other thread, I thought Ford's body language, effort, leadership was at a Tinsley level and as most of you know me that is probably the worst comparison I can ever make for a player. Ford should have been benched

I wonder if there's any way we could make Ford hate playing here enough that he'd decline his option for next season. I'm sure there's not. He's not stupid enough to take a $6-7 million paycut just to get out of town.

Comment

On the broadcast, Clark mentioned Tyler's doctor ordered minute limitation carries over to practice as well. He then went on to say that JOB has decided to use more of those minutes in practices and less in games for the time being. So that answers the minutes thing.

He's practicing more and his game minutes will reflect that for a little while.

Comment

I thought Murphy and Ford neither one had any business being on the floor. Troy at least finally came through on a couple of his bread-and-butter shots but it was almost too late by then.

I felt like Foster did an excellent job on defense.

I should have written it down, but didn't we get back in the game with Watson, D. Jones, S. Jones, Danny, and Tyler? I may be missing one there - was Roy in some instead of Solo during that period?

I was frustrated with JOB because the above lineup was snatched away to stick TJ and Murphy back in, at which point we started seeing out-of-control wild flings to the basket again. TJ will fool people because some of those things work in desperation time, but we wouldn't be desperate if he'd taken care of the ball earlier in the game.

I'd be ecstatic to see TJ and Troy sitting down, Danny resting his heel, and the rest of the team playing most of the minutes.

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

Toronto Raptor Jose Calderon defends against T.J. Ford as the Raptors beat the Indiana Pacers 123-112 at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto (Nov. 24, 2009).

STEVE RUSSELL/TORONTO STAR

Tuesday night was always going to be emotional for Raptors reserve guard Jarrett Jack, facing his former Pacers team led by his ex-teammate and rival for starting point guard, T.J. Ford.

It was messy. Eight months ago there had been that physical dustup and shouting match between the two players during a timeout in a mid-March loss to the Mavericks. Jack was banished to the locker room by coach Jim O'Brien. When Jack became a free agent, the Pacers let him go to the Raptors with no counter-offer.

Coach Jay Triano, understanding what was on the way last night in terms of personal issues for Jack, did his best to ease him into the game, keeping his man on the bench until there was just 2:50 left in the first quarter.

Ford was firmly on the bench.

Triano handled Jack's night with a deft touch that paid off in the second half.

In the first half, Jack was able to take care of emotions, while in the second he was able to take care of business. Playing the entire second and fourth quarters often alongside fellow point guard Jose Calderon, Jack scored 17 points on a perfect 7-for-7 shooting night, with six assists and three rebounds in a 123-112 victory heading back onto the road.

"He's different right now," Triano said of his ever-improving free agent. ``He's lighter off the floor. He's liking basketball now. He's beginning to know his role."

Jack seems perfectly at ease with his new teammates both on and off the court.

Last year was different. Jack and Ford had been co-point guards. The setup didn't work for the Pacers, just as it hadn't worked between Ford and Mo Williams in Milwaukee or Ford and Calderon with the Raps. In those situations it was always Ford that left.

Ford is a shooting guard in a point guard's body, while Jack is a point guard in a shooting guard's body. As a Pacers combination they were toxic.

Jack had to have strong emotions in his first time back on the floor against Indiana.

"Coach Alvin Williams always talks to me about staying even-keeled," Jack insisted. "My emotions not getting too up, not getting too down but staying right in the middle and being able to put myself and everyone else in a successful position."

This was a game Jack likely had circled since his first peek at the schedule, although he didn't admit it.

"I have every game circled on my calendar," Jack said. "That's not trying to be politically correct. I get excited for every single game and I think that's why I played 82 games in consecutive seasons. I love game day. I can't wait to play Charlotte."

Triano knew better. He glued Jack to the bench early on, waiting until 2:50 left in the first quarter before subbing him in.

In the first six minutes he played without Ford on the floor, he scored two points, with nothing across the board. By the half, playing much of that time against his arch-rival, Jack had nine points, three assists and a steal.

Whereas the first half was personal business, the second half became team business as the Pacers clawed back, cutting the Raptors' lead to five points with 38 seconds left in the third quarter.

The Pacers began the third with a 26-16 run. When Jack entered, for Calderon it was no longer to prove something personal. It was for the team. Jack took control of the offence and helped fend off a furious run.

When Calderon re-entered it was to play alongside Jack, a move that worked well giving Triano an extra option.

"I felt extra energized," Jack said. "That may have something to do with me playing against my old team. I felt I was in a good rhythm. I just came out flying."

The Pacers chapter of Jack's life is now closed with Triano's help. As they left the court, Calderon gave Ford a hug and a smile. Jack gave Ford a handshake and a glance.

Comment

I thought Murphy and Ford neither one had any business being on the floor. Troy at least finally came through on a couple of his bread-and-butter shots but it was almost too late by then.

I felt like Foster did an excellent job on defense.

I should have written it down, but didn't we get back in the game with Watson, D. Jones, S. Jones, Danny, and Tyler? I may be missing one there - was Roy in some instead of Solo during that period?

I was frustrated with JOB because the above lineup was snatched away to stick TJ and Murphy back in, at which point we started seeing out-of-control wild flings to the basket again. TJ will fool people because some of those things work in desperation time, but we wouldn't be desperate if he'd taken care of the ball earlier in the game.

I'd be ecstatic to see TJ and Troy sitting down, Danny resting his heel, and the rest of the team playing most of the minutes.

I carefully reviewed the second half to see who brought us back into the game and who helped us lose the lead again.

The lineup you listed was primarily responsible for getting us back into the game (as close as five points). I was hoping to show that my biases for Roy and against Troy would be confirmed, but it really didn't play out that way.

Roy was never in during the comeback. Hans did get replaced by Troy, but he didn't fairly well, hit some threes, and we stayed around ten behind or even single digits for several minutes.

From what I could tell, we lost our steam when TJ Ford came in for Watson. TJ made several bonehead plays, turned the ball over, then failed to play defense on JJ at a critical time, leading to an uncontested three.

Also, there's Toronto just being darn good on offense and various bad luck scenarios. But, for me, the key subbing problem was Watson for TJ.

"Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

Comment

"I have every game circled on my calendar," Jack said. "That's not trying to be politically correct. I get excited for every single game and I think that's why I played 82 games in consecutive seasons. I love game day.

I was fine with losing Jack for DJones and Watson. But how can you not miss this guy's attitude?

"Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

Comment

"In the first six minutes he played without Ford on the floor, he scored two points, with nothing across the board. By the half, playing much of that time against his arch-rival, Jack had nine points, three assists and a steal."

The reporter is trying to make a point that Jack's numbers came from wanting to outshine his rival from last year.

No, it just came from being defended by TJ Ford and not Watson. Duh.

"Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference